
Cars like this Maserati Gran Turismo S could have been forced to head to the paint shop
Enlarge Photo
California may have a reputation for being one of the more 'progressive' states in the union, however the latest idea to come from the ever wise California Air Resources Board (CARB) had even the most die-hard environmentalists scratching their heads. Today the board backed down from its proposal, however, releasing a statement that it is "by no means interested in banning or restricting car colors."
Last week, reports emerged that CARB, the body that can strike fear into the hearts of auto manufacturers at the mention of their name, had proposed to remove the color black from automotive palette. Of course, the state wasn't trying to get rid of one of the world's most popular car colors for aesthetic purposes - rather, its the environmental qualities of the color that the board was after.
We all know that white colored cars tend to stay cooler than black cars - this is because white can reflect heat, while black absorbs it. The reasoning behind the rumored proposal was that with lighter car colors, car interiors will be cooler and thus drivers will use the air-conditioning less, thereby reducing fuel consumption and saving the Earth from certain doom. Paint companies derided the no-black-cars idea as nonsense, saying that CARB was trying to put a simple theory into a difficult application.
The idea was a novel one, which CARB has apparently borrowed from Californian legislation aimed towards structural buildings. Where in buildings having reflective glass and paint colors can reduce energy usage, paint suppliers are claiming that the same idea doesn't quite carry over to the automotive industry, and that the environmental benefits may well be offset by the toxic heavy metals used in reflective paints that are difficult to recycle. Still, the energy savings issue remains.
Now that the black color issue is off the table, mandatory use of reflective glass or reflective paint may still be alternative solutions, however. Public comment on the reflective glass rule is now open, and a final vote on the 'cool cars' initiative is expected sometime after the board's late June meeting.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!
And by the way, it's never 90 and humid anywhere here, maybe 90, but not humid.
And the vast majority of the time the weather is absolutely perfect, which is more than I can say for most other states, if you want to get picky...
Maybe they should ban cars anywhere that the weather regularly goes above 90?
CARB does no research, yet contends they know how to fix something because it "sounds" good.
Remember when asked, "what do you think should be done to reduce rollover deaths in vehicles", Nancy Pelosi said she thinks more metal ought to be put in the roofs.
Remember when Claybrook forced airbags into cars when the auto cos. said not so fast, we need to study them further. Those first few years airbags killed more children than guns in schools ever did.
...
First, we should ban all black coloured cars that will absorb heat and require more air conditioning.
However, we should also ban light coloured cars because these lure insects to their deaths, preventing polination in a state where the economy depends on it.
Then we should ban wheels that are inflated with air, because they can be under-inflated leading to terrible fuel economy. Solid rubber tires are the way to go.
Next we should ban large gasoline engines, which use a tremendous amount of fuel and spout ludicrous amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.
Finally, we should dispense with safety devices of any sort. After all, if cars were less safe to drive, people would go slower, resulting in fewer fatalities AND less gasoline being burned.
In short, Henry Ford's model T will be re-born as the perfect example of a car for CARB. You'll even be able to get it in any colour you like, except black of course... or anything actually.
By buy r4i Posted: 1/20/2010 2:28am PST
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!